Cuenco vs. Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra, 440 SCRA 252

Cuenco vs. Cuenco Vda.
de Manguerra
G.R. No. 149844. October 13, 2004.*
MIGUEL CUENCO, substituted by MARIETTA C. CUYEGKENG, petitioner, vs. CONCEPCION CUENCO Vda.
DE MANGUERRA, respondent.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Findings of Fact; Certiorari; As a rule, findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding and conclusive.—As a rule, findings of fact of the
Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding and conclusive. Normally, such factual
findings are not disturbed by this Court, to which only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by
certiorari. This Court has consistently ruled that these questions “must involve no examination of the
probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.” Emphasizing the difference
between the two types of question, it has explained that “there is a question of law in a given case when
the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is pertaining to a certain state of facts, and there is a
question of fact when the doubt arises as the truth or the falsity of alleged facts.”
Civil Law; Contracts; Trust; Kinds; Trust relations between parties may either be express or implied;
resulting or constructive.—A trust is a legal relationship between one having an equitable ownership in a
property and another having legal title to it. Trust relations between parties may either be express or
implied. Express trusts are created by the direct and positive acts of the parties, indicated
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
253
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 13, 2004
253
Cuenco vs. Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra
through some writing, deed, will, or words evidencing an intention to create a trust. On the other hand,
implied trusts are those that, “without being express, are deducible from the nature of the transaction
as matters of intent[;] or which are superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as a matter of
equity, independently of the particular intention of the parties. Implied trusts may either be resulting or
constructive trusts, both coming into being by operation of law.” Resulting trusts are presumed to have
been contemplated by the parties and are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration,
not legal title, determines the equitable title or interest. These trusts arise from the nature of or the
circumstances involved in a transaction, whereby legal title becomes vested in one person, who is
obligated in equity to hold that title for the benefit of another. Constructive trusts are “created by the
construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They
arise contrary to intention against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the
legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.”
Same; Land Titles; Tax Declaration; Possession; Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of
property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in
the concept of owner.—“Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no
one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive
possession.” Such realty tax payments constitute proof that the holder has a claim of title over the
property.
Same; Estoppel in Pais; Estoppel applies when one induces another to believe certain facts to exist.—The
principle of estoppel in pais applies when—by one’s acts, representations, admissions, or silence when
there is a need to speak out—one, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to
believe certain facts to exist; and the latter rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so as to be prejudiced
if the former is permitted to deny the existence of those facts.
254
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Laches; Laches is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time.—Laches is
negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the
party entitled to it has either abandoned or declined to assert it. In the present case, respondent has
persistently asserted her right to Lot 903-A-6 against petitioner.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Padlan, Sutton & Associates for petitioners.
Roldan and Associates for respondent Concepcion Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Inasmuch as the facts indubitably and eloquently show an implied trust in favor of respondent, the Court
of Appeals did not err in affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court ordering petitioner to convey
the subject property to her. That Decision satisfied the demands of justice and prevented unjust
enrichment.
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the August 22, 2001
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 54852. The assailed Decision disposed as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.”3
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 9-59.

2 Id., pp. 61-80. Eleventh Division. Penned by Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., with the concurrence of
Justices Ruben T. Reyes (chair) and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. (member).
3 Assailed CA Decision, p. 20; Rollo, p. 80.
255
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 13, 2004
255
On the other hand, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision affirmed by the CA disposed as follows:
“WHEREFORE, considering that this action is essentially one for reconveyance or enforcement of a trust,
judgment is hereby rendered ordering the substituted defendant Marietta Cuenco Cuyegkeng to
reconvey or transfer, in a duly registrable public instrument, Lot No 903-A-6 under TCT No. 113781 of the
Registry of Deeds of Cebu City, of the Banilad Estate with an area of 834 square meters, in favor of
plaintiff Concepcion Cuenco Vda. De Manguerra; or should the substituted defendant, for one reason or
another, fail to execute the necessary instrument once the decision becomes final, the Clerk of Court of
this Court (RTC) is hereby instructed, in accordance with the Rules of Court, to prepare and execute the
appropriate and requisite conveyance and instrument in favor of herein plaintiff which, in either case,
shall be registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Cebu City.
Without costs in this instance.”4
The Facts
The facts were summarized by the appellate court as follows:
“On September 19, 1970, the [respondent] filed the initiatory complaint herein for specific performance
against her uncle [Petitioner] Miguel Cuenco which averred, inter alia that her father, the late Don
Mariano Jesus Cuenco (who became Senator) and said [petitioner] formed the ‘Cuenco and Cuenco Law
Offices’; that on or around August 4, 1931, the Cuenco and Cuenco Law Offices served as lawyers in two
(2) cases entitled Valeriano Solon versus Zoilo Solon’ (Civil Case 9037) and ‘Valeriano Solon versus
Apolonia Solon’ (Civil Case 9040) involving a dispute among relatives over ownership of lot 903 of the
Banilad Estate which is near the Cebu Provincial Capitol; that records of said cases indicate the name of
the [petitioner] alone as counsel of record, but in truth and in fact, the real lawyer behind the success of
said cases was the influential Don
_______________
4 RTC Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 86.
256
256
Mariano Jesus Cuenco; that after winning said cases, the awardees of Lot 903 subdivided said lot into
three (3) parts as follows:
Lot 903-A: 5,000 [square meters]: Mariano Cuenco’s attorney’s fees
Lot 903-B: 5,000 [square meters]: Miguel Cuenco’s attorney’s fees
Lot 903-C: 54,000 [square meters]: Solon’s retention
“That at the time of distribution of said three (3) lots in Cebu, Mariano Jesus Cuenco was actively
practicing law in Manila, and so he entrusted his share (Lot 903-A) to his brother law partner (the
[petitioner]); that on September 10, 1938, the [petitioner] was able to obtain in his own name a title for
Lot 903-A (Transfer Certificate of Title [TCT] RT-6999 [T-21108]); that he was under the obligation to hold
the title in trust for his brother Mariano’s children by first marriage; that sometime in 1947, the Cuenco
family was anticipating Mariano’s second marriage, and so on February 1, 1947, they partitioned Lot
903-A into six (6) sub-lots (Lots 903-A-1 to 903-A-6) to correspond to the six (6) children of Mariano’s
first marriage (Teresita, Manuel, Lourdes, Carmen, Consuelo, and Concepcion); that the [petitioner] did
not object nor oppose the partition plan; that on June 4, 1947, the [petitioner] executed four (4) deeds
of donation in favor of Mariano’s four (4) children: Teresita, Manuel, Lourdes, and Carmen, pursuant to
the partition plan (per notary documents 183, 184, 185, 186, Book III, Series 1947 of Cebu City Notary
Public Candido Vasquez); that on June 24, 1947, the [petitioner] executed the fifth deed of donation in
favor of Mariano’s fifth child—Consuelo (per notary document 214, Book III, Series 1947 of Cebu City
Notary Public Candido Vasquez) (Exhibits ‘2’ to ‘5’); that said five (5) deeds of donation left out Mariano’s
sixth child—Concepcion—who later became the [respondent] in this case; that in 1949, [respondent]
occupied and fenced a portion of Lot 903-A-6 for taxation purposes (Exhibit ‘F’, Exhibit ‘6’); that she also
paid the taxes thereon (Exhibit ‘G’); that her father died on February 25, 1964 with a Last Will and
Testament; that the pertinent portion of her father’s Last Will and Testament bequeaths the lot.
‘. . . near the Cebu provincial capitol, which were my attorney’s fees from my clients, Victoria Rallos and
Zoilo Solon, respectively—have already long been disposed of, and distrib-
257
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 13, 2004
257
uted by me, through my brother, Miguel, to all my said children in the first marriage;’
“That on June 3, 1966, the [petitioner] wrote a letter petitioning the Register of Deeds of Cebu to
transfer Lot 903-A-6 to his name on the ground that Lot 903-A-6 is a portion of Lot 903-A; that on April 6,
1967, the [respondent] requested the Register of Deeds to annotate an affidavit of adverse claim against
the [petitioner’s] TCT RT-6999 (T-21108) which covers Lot 903-A; that on June 3, 1967, the Register of
Deeds issued TCT 35275 covering Lot 903-A-6 in the name of the [petitioner] but carrying the earlier
annotation of adverse claim; that in 1969, the [petitioner] tore down the wire fence which the
[respondent] constructed on Lot 903-A-6 which compelled the latter to institute the instant complaint
dated August 20, 1970 on September 19, 1970.
“On December 5, 1970, the answer with counterclaim dated December 3, 1970 of [petitioner] Miguel
Cuenco was filed where he alleged that he was the absolute owner of Lot 903-A-6; that this lot was a
portion of Lot 903-A which in turn was part of Lot 903 which was the subject matter of litigation; that he
was alone in defending the cases involving Lot 903 without the participation of his brother Mariano
Cuenco; that he donated five (5) of the six (6) portions of Lot 903-A to the five (5) children of his brother
Mariano out of gratitude for the love and care they exhibited to him (Miguel) during the time of his long
sickness; that he did not give or donate any portion of the lot to the [respondent] because she never
visited him nor took care of him during his long sickness; that he became critically ill on February 11,
1946 and was confined at the Singian’s Clinic in Manila and then transferred to Cebu where he nearly
died in 1946; that his wife Fara Remia Ledesma Cuenco had an operation on January 1951 and was
confined at the University of Santo Tomas Hospital and John Hopkins Hospital in the United States; that
two of his children died at the University of Santo Tomas Hospital in 1951 and 1952; and that his wife
was blind for many months due to malignant hypertension but [respondent] never remembered her nor
did she commiserate with him and his wife in their long period of sorrow.
“[Petitioner] Miguel Cuenco took the witness stand as early as September 13, 1974. His self-conducted
direct examination lasted until 1985, the last one on November 22, 1985. Unfortunately, he
258
258
died5 before he was able to submit himself for cross-examination and so his testimony had to be stricken
off the record. His only surviving daughter, Marietta Cuyegkeng, stood as the substitute [petitioner] in
this case. She testified that she purchased Lot 903-A-6 (the property subject matter of this case) from
her late father sometime in 1990 and constructed a house thereon in the same year; that she became
aware of this case because her late father used to commute to Cebu City to attend to this case; and that
Lot 903-A-6 is in her name per Transfer Certificate of Title #113781 of the Registry of Deeds for Cebu.”6
Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA found respondent’s action not barred by res judicata, because there was “no identity of causes of
action between the Petition for cancellation of adverse claim in L.R.C. Records 5988 and the Complaint
for specific performance to resolve the issue of ownership in Civil Case No. R-11891.”
The appellate court further found no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court that respondent
“has the legal right of ownership over lot 903-A-6.” The CA ruled that the subject land “is part of the
attorney’s fees of Don Mariano Cuenco, predecessor-in-interest of [Respondent] Concepcion Cuenco
Vda. de Manguerra and [petitioner] merely holds such property in trust for [her], his title there [to]
notwithstanding.”
Finally, the CA held that the right of action of respondent “has not yet prescribed as she was in
possession of the lot in dispute and the prescriptive period to file the case commences to run only from
the time she acquired knowledge of an adverse claim over [her] possession.”
Hence, this Petition.7
_______________
5 Miguel Cuenco died on June 20, 1990. Certificate of Death; Records, Vol. III, p. 1079.
6 Assailed Decision, pp. 2-5; Rollo, pp. 62-65.
7 This case was deemed submitted for resolution on May 23, 2003, when the Court received
respondent’s Manifestation. On August 11, 2003, this Manifestation was taken up by the Third Divi-
259
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 13, 2004
259

The Issues
In her Memorandum, petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration:
“I.
On question of law, the Court of Appeals failed to consider facts of substance and significance which, if
considered, will show that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the petitioner.
“II.
On question of law, the Court of Appeals failed to appreciate the proposition that, contrary to the
position taken by the trial court, no constructive or implied trust exists between the parties, and neither
is the action one for reconveyance based upon a constructive or implied trust.
“III.
On question of law, the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that even where implied trust is admitted
to exist the respondent’s action for relief is barred by laches and prescription.
“IV.
On question of law, the trial court and the appellate court erred in expunging from the records the
testimony of Miguel Cuenco.”8
This Court’s Ruling
The Petition has no merit.
_______________
sion, which resolved to allow a substitution of parties. Petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Atty. Rody P.
Padlan, was filed on September 18, 2002; respondent’s Memorandum, signed by Atty. Paul Nicomedes L.
Roldan, was received on October 17, 2002.
8 Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 14-15; Rollo, pp. 251-252.
260
260
First Issue:
Evaluation of Evidence
Petitioner asks us to appreciate and weigh the evidence offered in support of the finding that Lot 903-A-
6 constituted a part of Mariano Cuenco’s share in the attorney’s fees. In other words, she seeks to
involve us in a reevaluation of the veracity and probative value of the evidence submitted to the lower
court. What she wants us to do is contrary to the dictates of Rule 45 that only questions of law may be
raised and resolved in a petition for review. “Absent any whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment,
and unless the lack of any basis for the conclusions made by the lower courts be amply demonstrated,
the Supreme Court will not disturb such factual findings.”9
As a rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are binding and
conclusive. Normally, such factual findings are not disturbed by this Court, to which only questions of law
may be raised in an appeal by certiorari.10 This Court has consistently ruled that these questions “must
involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of
them.”11 Emphasizing the difference between the two types of question, it has explained that “there is a
question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is pertaining to a
certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as the truth or the falsity of
alleged facts.”12
_______________
9 Almora v. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 586, 597, July 2, 1999, per Gonzaga-Reyes, J. (citing Tañedo v.
Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 80, 90, January 22, 1996, per Panganiban, J.).
10 §1 of Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
11 Manila Bay Club Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 245 SCRA 715, 725, July 11, 1995, per Francisco, J.
12 Serna v. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 527, 534, June 18, 1999, per Pardo, J. (citing Reyes v. Court of
Appeals, 258 SCRA 651, 658, July 11, 1996, per Romero, J.).
261
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 13, 2004
261
Indeed, after going over the records of the present case, we are not inclined to disturb the factual
findings of the trial and the appellate courts, just because of the insistent claim of petitioner. His
witnesses allegedly testified that Civil Case No. 9040 involving Lot 903 had not been handled by Mariano
for defendants therein—Apolonia Solon, Zoilo Solon, et al. It has sufficiently been proven, however, that
these defendants were represented by the Cuenco and Cuenco Law Office, composed of Partners
Mariano Cuenco and Miguel Cuenco.
Given as attorney’s fees was one hectare of Lot 903, of which two five-thousand square meter portions
were identified as Lot 903-A and Lot 903-B. That only Miguel handled Civil Case No. 9040 does not mean
that he alone is entitled to the attorney’s fees in the said cases. “When a client employs the services of a
law firm, he does not employ the services of the lawyer who is assigned to personally handle the case.
Rather, he employs the entire law firm.”13 Being a partner in the law firm, Mariano—like Miguel—was
likewise entitled14 to a share in the attorney’s fees from the firm’s clients. Hence, the lower courts’
finding that Lot 903-A was a part of Mariano Cuenco’s attorney’s fees has ample support.
Second Issue:
Implied Trust
Petitioner then contends that no constructive or implied trust exists between the parties.
_______________
13 Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo and Africa v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc., 309 SCRA 566, 574,
July 2, 1999, per Pardo, J.
14 Art. 1799 of the Civil Code states: “A stipulation which excludes one or more partners from any share
in the profits or losses is void.”
262
262
A trust is a legal relationship between one having an equitable ownership in a property and another
having legal title to it.15
Trust relations between parties may either be express or implied.16 Express trusts are created by the
direct and positive acts of the parties, indicated through some writing, deed, will, or words evidencing an
intention to create a trust.17 On the other hand, implied trusts are those that, “without being express,
are deducible from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent[;] or which are superinduced on
the transaction by operation of law as a matter of equity, independently of the particular intention of the
parties. Implied trusts may either be resulting or constructive trusts, both coming into being by
operation of law.”18
Resulting trusts are presumed to have been contemplated by the parties and are based on the equitable
doctrine that valuable consideration, not legal title, determines the equitable title or interest.19 These
trusts arise from the nature of or the circumstances involved in a transaction,20 whereby legal title
becomes vested in one person, who is obligated in equity to hold that title for the benefit of another.
Constructive trusts are “created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice
and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against one who, by fraud, duress or
abuse of confidence, obtains or
_______________
15 Vda. de Esconde v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 66, February 1, 1996 (citing Tolentino, Civil Code of the
Philippines, (1991), Vol. IV, p. 669, which in turn cited 54 Am Jur. 21).
16 Art. 1441 of the Civil Code.
17 Rosario v. Court of Appeals, 310 SCRA 464, July 19, 1999 (citing O’laco v. Co Cho Chit, 220 SCRA 662,
March 31, 1993).
18 Id., p. 475, per Gonzaga-Reyes, J. (citing Tigno v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 271, October 8, 1997;
and Policarpio v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 344, March 7, 1997).
19 Rosario v. Court of Appeals, supra.
20 Vitug, Civil Law Annotated (2003), Vol. III, p. 176.
263
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 13, 2004
263
holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.”21
A review of the records shows that indeed there is an implied trust between the parties.
Although Lot 903-A was titled in Miguel’s name, the circumstances surrounding the acquisition and the
subsequent partial dispositions of this property eloquently speak of the intent that the equitable or
beneficial ownership of the property should belong to Mariano and his heirs.
First, Lot 903-A was one half of the one-hectare portion of Lot 903 given as attorney’s fees by a client of
the law firm of Partners Miguel and Mariano Cuenco. It constituted the latter’s share in the attorney’s
fees and thus equitably belonged to him, as correctly found by the CA. That Lot 903-A had been titled in
the name of Miguel gave rise to an implied trust between him and Mariano, specifically, the former
holds the property in trust for the latter. In the present case, it is of no moment that the implied trust
arose from the circumstance—a share in the attorney’s fees—that does not categorically fall under
Articles 1448 to 1456 of the Civil Code. The cases of implied trust enumerated therein “does not exclude
others established by the general law of trust.”22
Second, from the time it was titled in his name in 1938,23 Lot 903-A remained undivided and
untouched24 by Miguel. Only on February 3, 1947, did Lourdes Cuenco,25 upon the instruction of
Mariano, have it surveyed and subdivided into
_______________
21 Rosario v. Court of Appeals, supra, p. 475, per Gonzaga-Reyes, J. (citing Morales v. Court of Appeals,
214 SCRA 282, June 19, 1997; Huang v. CA, 236 SCRA 420, September 13, 1994; Vda. de Esconde v. Court
of Appeals, supra).
22 Art. 1447 of the Civil Code.
23 TCT No. 21108; records, Vol. I, p. 7.

24 The property was overgrown with shrubs. TSN, December 9, 1994, p. 6.
25 One of Mariano Cuenco’s daughters. TSN, December 9, 1994, p. 6.
264
264
six almost equal portions—903-A-1 to 903-A-6. Each portion was specifically allocated to each of the six
children of Mariano with his first wife.26
Third, Miguel readily surrendered his Certificate of Title27 and interposed no objection28 to the
subdivision and the allocation of the property to Mariano’s six children, including Concepcion.
Fourth, Mariano’s children, including Concepcion,29 were the ones who shouldered the expenses
incurred for the subdivision of the property.
Fifth, after the subdivision of the property, Mariano’s children—including Concepcion30—took

possession of their respective portions thereof.
Sixth, the legal titles to five portions of the property were transferred via a gratuitous deed of
conveyance to Mariano’s five children, following the allocations specified in the subdivision plan
prepared for Lourdes Cuenco.31
With respect to Lot 903-A-6 in particular, the existence of Concepcion’s equitable ownership thereof is
bolstered, not just by the above circumstances, but also by the fact that respondent fenced the portion
allocated to her and planted trees thereon.32
More significantly, she also paid real property taxes on Lot 903-A-6 yearly, from 1956 until 196933—the
year when she was dispossessed of the property, “Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of
property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of posses-
_______________
26 Annex “D” of respondent’s Memorandum.
27 TSN, December 9, 1994, p. 7.
28 Id., pp. 27-28.
29 Respondent’s Memorandum, p. 12; Rollo, p. 308.
30 TSN, December 9, 1994, p. 9.
31 Records, Vol. I, p. 6.
32 TSN, June 11, 1973, p. 45.
33 Exhibit “G”, Certification dated June 13, 1973.
265
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 13, 2004
265

sion in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not
in his actual or at least constructive possession.”34 Such realty tax payments constitute proof that the
holder has a claim of title over the property.
Tellingly, Miguel started paying real property taxes on Lot 903-A-6 only on April 4, 1964,35 after the
death of Mariano.36 This fact shows that it was only in that year that he was emboldened to claim the
property as his own and to stop recognizing Mariano’s, and subsequently Concepcion’s, ownership rights
over it. It was only by then that the one who could have easily refuted his claim had already been
silenced by death. Such a situation cannot be permitted to arise, as will be explained below.
Estoppel
From the time Lot 903-A was subdivided and Mariano’s six children—including Concepcion—took
possession as owners of their respective portions, no whimper of protest from petitioner was heard until
1963. By his acts as well as by his omissions, Miguel led Mariano and the latter’s heirs, including
Concepcion, to believe that Petitioner Cuenco respected the ownership rights of respondent over Lot
903-A-6. That Mariano acted and relied on Miguel’s tacit recognition of his ownership thereof is evident
from his will, executed in 1963, which states:
“I hereby make it known and declare that x x x all properties which my first wife and I had brought to, or
acquired during our
_______________
34 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 331 SCRA 267, 293, April 28, 2000, per
Mendoza, J.
35 Miguel Cuenco paid realty taxes for the years 1945 to 1963 only on April 4, 1964. Exhibit “7”,
Certification dated July 31, 1974; records, Vol. III, p. 2065.
36 Mariano Cuenco died on February 25, 1964. TSN, June 11, 1973, p. 9.
266
266
marriage, or which I had acquired during the years I was a widower—including jewelry, war damage
compensation, and two other lots also located at Cebu City, one near the South-Western University and
the other near the Cebu provincial capitol, which were my attorney’s fees from my clients, Victoria Rallos
and Zoilo Solon, respectively—have already long been disposed of, and distributed by me, through my
brother, Miguel, to all my said six children in the first marriage.”37 (emphasis supplied)
Indeed, as early as 1947, long before Mariano made his will in 1963, Lot 903-A—situated along Juana
Osmeña Extension, Kamputhaw, Cebu City,38 near the Cebu Provincial Capitol—had been subdivided
and distributed to his six children in his first marriage. Having induced him and his heirs to believe that
Lot 903-A-6 had already been distributed to Concepcion as her own, petitioner is estopped from
asserting the contrary and claiming ownership thereof.
The principle of estoppel in pais applies when—by one’s acts, representations, admissions, or silence
when there is a need to speak out—one, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another
to believe certain facts to exist; and the latter rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so as to be
prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of those facts.39
Third Issue:
Laches
Petitioner claims that respondent’s action is already barred by laches.
We are not persuaded., Laches is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time,
warranting a pre-
_______________
37 Last Will and Testament of M. Jesus Cuenco, pp. 1-2; Rollo, pp. 378-379.
38 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 6; Rollo, p. 243.
39 Hanopol v. Shoemart, Incorporated, 390 SCRA 439, October 4, 2002.
267
VOL. 440, OCTOBER 13, 2004
267
sumption that the party entitled to it has either abandoned or declined to assert it.40 In the present
case, respondent has persistently asserted her right to Lot 903-A-6 against petitioner.
Concepcion was in possession as owner of the property from 1949 to 1969.41 When Miguel took steps
to have it separately titled in his name, despite the fact that she had the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT
No. RT-6999—the title covering the entire Lot 903-A—she had her adverse claim annotated on the title
in 1967. When petitioner ousted her from her possession of the lot by tearing down her wire fence in
1969,42 she commenced the present action on September 19, 1970,43 to protect and assert her rights
to the property. We find that she cannot be held guilty of laches, as she did not sleep on her rights.
Fourth Issue:
Expunging of Testimony
Petitioner Cuyegkeng questions the expunging of the direct testimony of Miguel Cuenco. Respondent
points out that this issue was not raised before the CA. Neither had petitioner asked the trial court to
reconsider its Order expunging the testimony. Hence, this issue cannot for the first time be raised at this
point of the appeal. Issues, arguments and errors not adequately and seriously brought below cannot be
raised for
_______________
40 Westmont Bank v. Ong, 375 SCRA 212, January 30, 2002; De Castro v. Court of Appeals, 384 SCRA 607,
July 18, 2002.
41 Respondent’s Memorandum, p. 32; Rollo, p. 328.
42 Ibid.
43 Complaint; Records, pp. 1-8.
268
268
the first time on appeal.44 “Basic considerations of due process impel this rule.”45
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED, Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona, JJ., concur.
Carpio-Morales, J., On Leave.
Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.

Note.—Constructive trusts are created in equity to prevent unjust enrichment, arising against one who,
by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not,
in equity and good conscience, to hold. (Vda. de Retuerto vs. Barz, 372 SCRA 712 [2001])
——o0o——
_______________
44 Magellan Capital Management Corporation v. Zosa, 355 SCRA 157, March 26, 2001; Magnolia Dairy
Products Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 252 SCRA 483, January 29, 1996.
45 City of Cebu v. Heirs of Candido Rubi, 306 SCRA 408, 424, April 29, 1999, per Gonzaga-Reyes, J. (citing
Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 527, June 20, 1997).
Cuenco vs. Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra, 440 SCRA 252, G.R. No. 149844 October 13, 2004

Cuenco vs. Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra, 440 SCRA 252

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cuenco vs. Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra, 440 SCRA 252

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cuenco vs. Cuenco Vda. de Manguerra, 440 SCRA 252

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cuenco vs. Cuenco Vda.

G.R. No. 149844. October 13, 2004.*

VOL. 440, OCTOBER 13, 2004

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED